In your core argument you show that God as a premise is bunk. Furthermore, as a concept evil is a founding principle of the morality the bible lays down is also bunk, therefore if the statement The bible is fictional can be construed to be true, the premises inside the bible can also be said to be fictitious in nature. Sure good fiction is based on truth, however, the idea of evil is a foundation on heaven and what goes against god's will.
Evil is synonymous with being bad.
So to say the world would be better is introducing a concept that flows against your entire structured diatribe.
Better how? There is No Evil!
1) Freewill - Every creature on this planet has freewill, we all strive to survive, therefore when bacteria infest us they are not bad. They are fighting to survive, and evolve strengths against our immune system so that they can slowly feeding off us evolve and move on. Some have learned to live in our gut without ever being affected by the immune system and some are lethal to us.
2) Suffering makes us stronger. - Evolution, based on circumstances. If a race is not intelligent enough to make their situation more hospitable then their lineage is forced to adapt to survive. Sure you can say a lot of people die in Africa but a lot more are born, they have adapted to death. One could say they are evolving at a rapid rate to cope with the climate.
3) God's will - 1)Freewill (Reinforced)
4) Mysterious Ways - 2)(Counterpart) to suffering makes us stronger.
5) Suffering on earth - 2) (Counterpart) In this argument - It is shown that not everyone believes in heaven, God putting an end to evil, via a flood... This just shows that god is unfairly biased towards fish. This is the first point that heaven is a ridiculous notion, as a result so is hell, and the criteria to enter each.
6) - 5) Furthers the concept of Hell as ludicrous
7) The definition of evil, Showing that we define the terms... Sure we do it differently to God but a name is a name it's the morality equation.
8) Evil the absence of good, redefining the term without solving the constructed morality equation.
9) Bunking the premise that immorality is a factor of why we are here. Furthermore showing immorality is a flawed concept and that Evil is ridiculous.
10) Showing that Evil is intrinsically in the bible alone.
11) Stating in short - to rely on God to fix our problems is Illogical as he doesn't exist.
So there is no god and there are no Evil's just motivation and evolution.
Welcome to the world you live in.
Lets look at a few evils shall we with this new premis and see if they fit...
Murder and Rape - There is always a motivation on an evolutionary stance. Murder allows less competition and a higher chance of ones own lineage to prosper. Lions often kill the children of a rival alpha male to then rape the lioness to have their own offspring. To say that the act of rape is intrinsically evil when the result is life is backward. If anything rape was the driving force of mankinds evolution for millennia and still is for many species to this day.
Arson - The idea that fire is evil is flawed as fire has no free will, a person setting fires for pleasure has a motivation. Property is a construct of the human mind, also, it is founded in the bible under stealing a loaf of bread. To say a living being is property is human in nature - Pets However the idea of property is also rediculous.
Theft - As with arson the idea of property is human in nature you cannot steal what never belonged to you, when you die your body is just a physical arrangement of atoms that housed your mind so what is there to rob when the mind is gone?
Natural large scale events, Floods Earthquakes Volcanoes Hurricanes All just killing on circumstance, if you choose to live in an area of cross winds or low/high pressure, at the foot of a mountain, near tectonic shifts and next to water then these are things you should be prepared for! If you aren't then who's fault is it that your house got washed away. It's like making a nest out of stinging nettles. Either don't do it or adapt to live in it. For example reef fish who live in sea anemones.
I could go on but as the premise suggests Evil is a construct of man written in a book. And in fact never existed in the first place.
Morals therefore are a selfish notion that need the follower to have self worth to be understood. (do unto others as they would do to YOU) This follows a construct of the Bible and adhere to the notion that evil exists and therefore is evil itself incarnate.
To be immoral cannot therefore be a bad thing in fact it is an evolutionary default.
Furthermore justification is a notion of moral reasoning
Therefore - Without the the premises in the bible the idea of having to justify ones actions to someone else is pointless. All laws of property and morality fail, as the ideas themselves are build on a faulty premise, the construct is man made.
The point isn't that God can rid us of evil.
Evil is a man made invention and the premises surrounding are also man made interpretations of reality and in fact doesn't exist.
So how can the world (A ball of moulten hot iron) be made Better? You mean to say...
We can make the world a more hospitable place for us, every other species we don't require can go the way of the do-do.
What do you think life would be like in your "evil-free" world?
What we consider evil is a reflection of the largest challenges we face in life. There are internet communities populated largely by middle-class liberal Americans who consider referring to someone by the wrong pronoun to be horrible.
I didnīt state that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God would get rid of every form of suffering or hardship. But a lot of suffering in our world is basically pointless (like a baby dying from an agonizing disease or genetic defect).
Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words...Jeremiah 45:21-23.
"Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them. Because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered...Jeremiah 35:17.
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me. That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness. "I make peace, and create evil." I the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness. Let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it...Isaiah 45:5-8
Feh. A truly omnipotent God would not be like the things of this universe, borne ceaselessy forward in the stream of time so that the past would be irrevocable and the future inevitable.
For all you know, time is actually moving backwards, and all the evil deeds are being reabsorbed by the beings that commit them.
A truly omnipotent God could rewind our universe like a rented videocassete to bring us to a pristine final state where no evil deeds happened at all, and there was no suffering; he could back up the tape and reedit it, rearrange the scenes, or simply leave it paused and go to the kitchen for Cheetos.
What kind of cheap, second-rate omnipotence cannot make things unhappen?
This is not an argument against the existence of God, but an argument for the malevolence of God. According to the idea of Hell, God is actually pure evil. It's all about the logical reasons of punishment. The only reason for any authority figure to punish someone with incarceration are:
</b>1. To prevent the person from continuing to do the thing that he was incarcerated for. 2. To show the person the consequences of disobedience so that they could obey the rules in the future. 3. To make the person serve as an example to others, to encourage them to obey the rules.</b>
...so, let's see which reason God applies to justifying sending people to Hell.
1. Prevention can't be the reason, because the incarceration happens after death, therefore even wihtout the punishment it would not be possible for the person to continue doing that which got the person incarcerated. God does not send people to Hell to keep them from doing immoral acts in the future. 2. Teaching a lesson can't be the reason, because the incarceration happens after death, so there is no way for the person to put the lesson into practice in the future. God does not send people to Hell to teach them a lesson. 3. Making examples can't be the reason, because Hell is beyond perception. No information can reach this plane of existence. If it could, the existence of Hell would be a scientific fact. There's no way for people to be persuaded to be moral by observing what happens to them in Hell if they aren't. God does not send people to Hell to set them as examples for others on what not to do.
Therefore, God punishes people with eternal torture, literally for absolutely no reason. That is pure evil. If the stereotypical Christian God would exist, he would be more evil than the Devil himself, just because of this one feature of his.
'As you can see, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god contradicts reality, meaning that God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent or simply doesn't exist in the first place. I find the last option the most likely one.'
Too many false statements brings you to false conclusion.
'Our definition of evil is different from God's.' bullshit 'Evil is simply an absence of good.' bullshit 'The evil in the word is caused by the fall.' bullshit 'I know that some Christians don’t think Hell is eternal' Too bad Christianity does. Therefore, bullshit.
the list of fails is almost as long as this post. Some people shouldn't be allowed to be OPs, lol.
Every one of your answers is mere subjective opinion as there are a myriad of interpretations each one with their on caveats on certain passages of scripture. That's why there are so many different denominations in the first place.
Umm yes. If there was just ONE interpretation then there would be one religion but it's not. Their are somewhere around 41,000 denominations of Christianity which is itself a branch of Judaism. All of them claiming the truth and you dismiss them all in favor of your personal interpretation that you claim to be true. As you know you all CAN'T be right but they all can be wrong.
... And you calling such things bullshit is justified by...?
Seen as all of those points can be argued to be true, despite the highly subjective nature of each term and interpretations of each named aspect.
But I really want the justification that THIS is a logical fallacy: 'As you can see, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god contradicts reality, meaning that God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent or simply doesn't exist in the first place. I find the last option the most likely one.'
I call these things 'bullshit' because he made them out of thin air without even trying to say where did he get it from and made them a thesis for his conclusions.
'Seen as all of those points can be argued to be true' As a matter of fact, they are all false.
The last one is a logical fallacy because he used false thesis to come up with a conclusion. If you claim that the grass is blue and sky is green, you can 'prove' that salad is blue and ocean is green. False conclusions coming from false information, not the process itself.
Not ONE of those rather... incoherent arguments is justifying any of the statements you have made.
Every single one of those points he made are about something of a highly subjective nature. Which means they can be argued to be true from definitions of the words used.
To deny this then you need to define the words used correctly, source or cite sources contradicting him on his conceptions of religious views or ideas, and basically build an argument. Not repeat what you have already said in a slightly longer and unnecessarily incoherent manner.
Why? If they are incoherent, I call it bullshit, simple as that.
'Which means they can be argued to be true from definitions of the words used' As a matter of fact, no. Every knowledgeable person would recognize these statements as very naive OPINION, hung in the air, without ANY basis.
'source or cite sources contradicting him' It's hard to cite something that would contradict a random number of illogical statements made out of nowhere. In fact, look at this:
'8. Evil is simply an absence of good.' This statement doesn't just contradict the facts, it is just plain random. No basis, no reason, not even a single try to clarify this mistake. If you know the definitions of 'evil' and 'good' you already know that this is nothing more than blabbering.
'Not repeat what you have already said in a slightly longer and unnecessarily incoherent manner.' English isn't your first language, right?
... Just because you are incapable of understanding or recognising the basis does not indicate it`s absence.
To use your example next to a dictionary definition of Good and Evil: Good(In this context): that which is morally right; righteousness Evil: profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force, etc...
By this definition I could take the view of the world that NOTHING is neutral as far as good or evil goes. Everything is either evil or good on a scale where neutrality is a balance that is only theoretical. From this point of view, fucking evidently, Evil is quite definitely the absence of Good. This might not be the view he is taking, but is IS a view, and one you can evidently not see.
Not that any of this is relevant: "Evil is simply the absence of good" is an argument that has been used to against him, that he is qualifying as irrelevant in this argument.
Now let`s get back to the original point: "As you can see, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god contradicts reality, meaning that God is either not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnibenevolent or simply doesn't exist in the first place. I find the last option the most likely one." Refute that correctly. How is that, in any way, a logical fallacy?
..."Not repeat what you have already said in a slightly longer and unnecessarily incoherent manner" Read again. Maybe you are not used to a slightly more intellectual form of language. Which I would not find surprising.
Simple answer to your questions? That's why there's a song called: "To God be the Glory." And, since God is the Creator of all life. Thus, God can execute death or life...Just, because God knows the past and the future, that doesn't mean He controls your "free will" to choose, whether if it is "good or evil." That's why the Bible declares, God will judges everyone according to our "Deeds." Whether if it's good or evil.
The only way God can know the future is if the future is already predetermined. This means that all our actions and choices are garunteed to have one specific outcome, meaning that we donīt actually have the freedom to make our own choices.
Why blame God? If you choosen to God or Satan? If you choose God or Satan as your personal saviour then-your destination is pre-determined. Just, because God is all knowing from past and future, that doesn't mean that He has taken your free will to choose. So, therefore, God has not taken away our free will of choice...
Logically, God's foreknowledge of what we are going to choose doesn't mean we can't do or choose something else - it only means that God knows what we have chosen to do ahead of time. Our freedom isn't restricted by God's foreknowledge - rather, it is simply realized ahead of time by God.
In other words, knowing something will happen doesn't mean I am preventing or causing it to happen.
The issue here is understanding the nature of God and time. If God exists in all times and places, then God is not restricted to time in the same way we are (making God a non-linear entity). In this understanding, the "future" can be known by God because God lives in the future as well as the present and the past. It also implies that God is not restricted to operating in our present only. And his foreknowledge certainly doesn't mean that the future is predetermined in the way you are describing it.
It's not that God prevents free will by having perfect knowledge of the future. I'm saying that God can only have perfect knowledge of the future (which an omniscient god has) if the future is pre-determined and can't be changed. If we can't change the future, then we can only follow one path, meaning that we don't have free will.
Even if God exists outside time, it doesn't solve the problem: 1.God timelessly knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely". 2.If C is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that C. 3.If it is now-necessary that C, then C cannot be otherwise (this is the definition of “necessary”). That is, there are no actual "possibilities" due to predestination. 4.If you cannot do otherwise when you act, you do not act freely (Principle of Alternate Possibilities) 5.Therefore, when you do an act, you will not do it freely.
That's exactly what God is doing, He is bring what we wish so that we can see how human kind are desparetely very wicked and evil. So, God is not taking away our free will of choice. That's why there will be the day of judgment and it shall be executed. Otherwise, if mankind were not evil, then there's no need for the day of judgment.
The concepts of determinism and free will can be compatible with each other, not contradictory.
The strength of greek step logic is pointing out when things are false (as when laws such as the law of non-contradiction is violated). However, step logic's ability to prove conclusions is only as good as its premise held. For example, a position of "entities with free will have non-determinate futures" is an assumption that cannot be proven. And even so, we must agree on what "free will" is...
Would we say that free will means "able to choose any conceivable thing, including things contrary to one's nature"? I hope not, as that would start to go down the realm of contradictory. I find this liberalism view of free will to be very flawed, while the compatiblism resonates with me more - that we must choose things that are congruous to our nature.
To sum up, there is a ton more work that you need to do to prove your case. There is no law of excluded middle here that you could employ to prove that free will is not compatible with determinism. You can prove "free will" or "not free will" using excluded middle, but you cannot prove "not free will" if "determinism" without defining terms better. The burden of proof is on you to show that liberlist free will exists.
Well from what I see is that it's a different case when there is a supposed author to a determined outcome. A character within a novel can do nothing to change the fate that has been written down for them.
A very interesting metaphor, with many various interpretations. While some authors may perceive themselves as puppet masters (a valid approach), others, including myself, see ourselves as scribes, recording the events that have already transpired. Such authors ask "What did Barnaby do?" rather than "What shall I make Barnaby do?" Here lies the mystery of such an approach - where determinism of the author and the free will of his character work together.
If Barnaby is a good-hearted, insecure, friendly rat, my readers will think me absurd if i write an action that is contrary to these qualities - "Barnaby laughed and pointed at the tiny mouse being picked on by the gang of rats." So we can see that the author is limited by the qualities of his characters. The real question that remains: Does the author create Eveything from scratch? Or is he rather collaborating with his characters, both guiding them, yet also learning from them.
This is why the Hebrews write of both God and Pharoah hardening his heart in Exodus. They viewed things as a dance, if you will. A symbiotic relationship between man and God, influencing the course of history.
God's foreknowledge of such history does not contradict the fact that humans influence it (nor does it mean that Gods perfect plan can't include the mistakes and choices of humans).
Your analogy fails in that you have every means to set the characters action even against it's will. I like that you mention the hardening of Pharoah's heart as God tells Moses that this is what he will do long before Moses returns to Egypt. Had not God hardened his heart would Pharoah had released the slaves? I mean WHY do that except to show off and even then he makes sure Pharaoh doesn't get the message so he can go kill all the firstborn sons. An omnipotent being that can literally do anything else to free the slave decides this is the right path. (By the way I'm speaking hypothetically as there is evidence that the story never occurred at all or in the very least as it was written in the bible) [link]
"(nor does it mean that Gods perfect plan can't include the mistakes and choices of humans)." For the plan to be perfect it would have to include said mistakes meaning the fate was forced upon them as it could not have occurred any other way for the plan to be perfect.